7 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
PhDs have been debating this for decades, cultures have come to many varying conclusions - there isn't one answer for the subjective experience. There are MANY examples of that. It isn't unique to this. And if you try to define woman by anything other than a persons own self identification, you'll come to the same issue. Breast? Some removed. Babies? Some sterile, unsafe for pregnancy, etc. on and on. Stressing about it just isn't necessary. Words evolve. So do people and cultures. Protected classes getting mixed up is less of issue than many would have you believe, simply because trans people are also a vulnerable class. Trans women have a much greater likelihood of facing violence than cis women, for example.
Comment by mcbriza at 12/01/2025 at 10:28 UTC
12 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I appreciate the discussion. I guess I’m challenging the presumption that woman or man is simply a personal identity category and nothing more. It’s also a social class (in my view). So my next question would be, what purpose is there in having a class of people called women if anyone can self identify into it? For example, we separate prisons into men’s and women’s facilities. If anyone can self-identify as a woman based on any characteristic they want, what is the purpose of having a women’s prison? If it’s to protect women, what is the characteristic that that makes them vulnerable to men as a class, if anyone can self-identify as a woman? If it’s simply self-identity, does that mean you can self-identify as not a woman and then be in the privileged class?
Comment by pen_and_inkling at 12/01/2025 at 13:32 UTC*
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Words have multiple meanings, definitely, but they’re agreed on by consensus usage. How words are used on Reddit is often NOT their consensus usage in mainstream discourse.
The Oxford English Dictionary is THE definitive scholarly source on documented, applied word usage and etymology in the English language. The OED is descriptive (reflects how the word is actually used and how we know) vs. prescriptive (how a word “ought” to be used). https://www.oed.com/dictionary/woman%5C_n[1][2]
1: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/woman%5C_n
2: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/woman_n
It is reasonable and important to acknowledge when words have variant and changing definitions, and to be specific about which you are using and why. That’s what the OED does, and what all fair thinkers do.
It is unreasonable to insist that everyone should erase the most common meaning of long-established and important words like “woman” on demand in order to appeal to the preferences of a small proportion of English language speakers using the word differently for now.
Comment by Costiony at 14/01/2025 at 18:57 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Im one of the people really confused by both trans and non-binary. I don't have a problem with it at all, I just don't understand it (and have come to terms with that completely). I do find it incredibly interesting though.
I feel like your reasoning here is ok, but when we talk about women having breast, its like saying humans have 2 feet. No, it doesn't make anyone less human if they lost one, but generally, genetically speaking, humans have 2 feet. Which is why, to me, "human" is an understandable term, and woman, not as sex but gender, is not.
I don't "feel" like a woman, I wouldn't know what it feels like to be a man. And no one have been able to explain what the difference is between what I'm feeling, and what trans people and NBs are feeling.
Comment by Late-Ad1437 at 15/01/2025 at 04:51 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
But then this is the issue with conflating binary trans people who medically transition, with non binary people who don't necessarily change anything about their body or presentation besides name/pronouns. An AFAB non-binary who is perceived as a woman by the majority of society, doesn't face the same risks as an non-passing trans woman .